GPL v3

 

John Cowan wrote:
 
> It wouldn't have much practical impact for a long time,
since
> the overwhelming bulk of all GPLed software would be
under a "v2 or
v3"
> license, small amounts (like the Linux kernel) under a
"v2 only"
license,
> and essentially nothing under a "v3 only"
license.

Au contraire, my guess is that soon after there is a final
GPL v3, the
bulk of FSF/GNU code will be relicensed v3-only (and this is
a lot of
code).
Remember, they can do this far more easily than many other
projects,
since FSF requires assignment of copyright.

On the original topic: if GPL v3 does violate the OSD by
discriminating
against a class of applications, e.g. DRMs, RMS might
consider this
a bug, or he might consider it a feature.  It is certainly
possible
he would like to see a sharper distinction between
"free software"
and "open source" rather than consolidation.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center

Wilson, Andrew scripsit:

> Au contraire, my guess is that soon after there is a
final GPL v3, the
> bulk of FSF/GNU code will be relicensed v3-only (and
this is a lot of
> code).
> Remember, they can do this far more easily than many
other projects,
> since FSF requires assignment of copyright.

You may be right, but FSF code is a tiny minority of all
GPLed code.

> On the original topic: if GPL v3 does violate the OSD
by discriminating
> against a class of applications, e.g. DRMs, RMS might
consider this
> a bug, or he might consider it a feature.  It is
certainly possible
> he would like to see a sharper distinction between
"free software"
> and "open source" rather than consolidation.

I agree, and I agree that section 3 is the most problematic
under the OSD.

-- 
Where the wombat has walked,            John Cowan
<cowanccil.org>
it will inevitably walk again.          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 17:08 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Wilson, Andrew scripsit:
> 
> > Au contraire, my guess is that soon after there is
a final GPL v3, 
> > the bulk of FSF/GNU code will be relicensed
v3-only (and this is a 
> > lot of code).
> 
> You may be right, but FSF code is a tiny minority of
all GPLed code.

That's like saying a keystone is only a small part of an
arch. Obviously
true, but besides the point.

FSF code (such as gcc, to pick a prominent example) is
probably
infrastructural in some non-trivial way to most other FOSS
projects.

- Michael Bernstein

> Au contraire, my guess is that soon after there is a
final GPL v3, the
> bulk of FSF/GNU code will be relicensed v3-only (and
this is a lot of
> code).
> Remember, they can do this far more easily than many
other projects,
> since FSF requires assignment of copyright.

They would never revoke the GPL v2 license on existing code.
 People may 
be right that this is technically allowed under the law
(though from 
what I understand this isn't certain) , but it isn't the
FSF's style. 
They generally do not take back freedoms given. They will
immediately 
start licensing new code as GPL v3 only, eventually making
code FSF code 
using only GPL v2 or lower obselete and essentially making
people comply 
with GPL v3.

-Matthew Flaschen

Am Mittwoch, 25. Januar 2006 23:01 schrieb Wilson, Andrew:
> Au contraire, my guess is that soon after there is a
final GPL v3, the
> bulk of FSF/GNU code will be relicensed v3-only (and
this is a lot of
> code).
> Remember, they can do this far more easily than many
other projects,
> since FSF requires assignment of copyright.

I guess. all fsf code is licensed GPLv2+, so once GPL v3 is
published,
everyone can choose which version.

but the gpl cannot be terminated - all code published with
GPL v2+
stays that way, even if a new version is published as 3+,
the old
code is still available under the old license.

many fsf projects are no longer developed. tools like tar
simply work,
many tools have been last updated 1998 or somethign like
that.
so there would be no point in re-releasing those tools with
the new
license, since noone needs an updated version.

the interesting part are projects like gcc. but these
projects have a
lot of developers, and the fsf wants those to stay and
continue to
develop the project and contribute code. so far every
contributes
knew his code would be licensed as GPLv2+. if that changes, 
companies might need their legal department to go over the
new license and reevaluate, if contributing is ok. at least
with
the beurocracy in big companies I expect something like
that.

so I really doubt that any big project will suddenly switch
to
GPL v3+, or the fsf will force that. Rather I expect each
project
to discuss the new license and switch after a while when
it has been discussed, approved and people feel good about
it.

sure, there will be a few test baloons like project whose
code is
misused anyway or where they fear patents a lot and want to
switch to GPLv3 as far as possible, but I don't see that for
the
majority of projects happening. 

so I think there is little to worry so far. it will be at
least a year
till the new license is released. still that year should not
be wasted,
rather it is interesting to follow the dicussions and stay
involved
as soon as possible.

Regards, Andreas